The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. As it may serve to throw some additional light upon e motives which actuate the Tory portion of the House of Lords in their legislation for Ireland, it may not be amiss if we revert to some of the proceedings in that House on Tuesday evening. When Lord Dun cannon moved the second reading of the Dublin Po lice Bill, though Lord Ellenborough, as a matter of course, recommended delay—the Bill being useful — yet neither he nor any of his .confederates opposed the motion. How did the Duke of Wellington and Lord . Ellenborough treat the same Bill last y ear ? They threw it out ! Why ? Because, according to the Noble Duke, the then Lord Mayor of Dublin had written to his Grace a letter, in which the ex-civic functionary stated that he had not had time to - read the Bill and understand the bearing of its provisions. This was the sum and substance of the reason why the Duke of Wellington and his Tory satellites in the Upper House flung out last year the Dublin Police Bill, which they seem now disposed to agree to ; and by rejecting the measure then, subjected the Irish capital to a con tinuance of all the evils. and inconveniences result ina from that police system which Lord Ellen borough now declares to be " most scandalous." The Noble Lord must have been aware, when the Bill was formerly before Parliament, of the " scandalous state" of the Dublin police ; and the Duke of Wellington knew from experience, that under the existing system of metropolitan police, there was not in the Irish ca pital any thing_ like protection either for life or pro perty, especially in the day time ! Life may be taken, burglary may be committed, property may be stolen in day-light, in any of the streets of Dublin, with every chance of impunity, with every prospect of escape for the delinquents. A maniac—as he afterwards was discovered to be—walked about one of the most fre quented thoroughfares in Dublin, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, holding a brace of pistols in his hands, and with apparent coolness shot dead one of the most respectable merchants in the city. After commit ting the fatal deed he walked off, and would have most probably escaped detection, had not a gentle man who was passing by at the moment, at the peril cf his own life, seized the assassin. Subsequently another person, a countryman, was murdered in the evening by a miscreant who fired at him, at a distance of some yards, in a poplous street, which happened at the instant to he crowded with passengers. This occurred within sight of a military barrack, and at a very short distance from the head office of police, yet the murderer escaped, and was net arrested for a considerable time. Outrages, resulting from combina tion, are of frequent occurre nce in Dublin, and it often happens that the gusty parties escape—it inva riably is the case that 'blood is shed before the po lice fiave heard of the riotous proceedings. These arc facts—all well known to the Duke of Welling-- - ton, Sir 11. Peel, Sir Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Gold burn, each of whom has been Chief Secretary for Ire land. Yet the party of which these individuals are loaders, flung out, last year, a Bill similar to the one they are now agreeing to—the object of which was to remedy the grievous evil we have been pointing out ; nav, the Noble Duke himself was the originator of that proceeding, the facticusness of which is confessed by the Tory Lords themselves, in their ,assent to tin. present measure. It may be asked, what fact:ous motive the Tory Lords could have hail, in tit: owing Out the Bill of last year? A selfish and factions eon siee:ation influenced their conduct. 'They .-eanted to keep the Bill, the value of which no one presumed to qnestion, in pel to, until some caprice or accident might restore themselves to office ; in which contingency their frientb, Aldermen Perrin and Smith, were to obtain • the reward of their services at the last Dublin election ; and they wished also to thwart the present Govern ment.—an object as cherished in their bosoms as even the ambition of once mere dispensing the patronage of the Crown, and fingering the public money. Far these reasons it was that the Tory Peers refused to the ca vital of Ireland, last year, a remedy for that police s .stem which is really most inefficient, and which one of the confederates against the peace and prosperity - of the country has now the boldness to avow is " most scandalous," although he and his party in the House of Lords have continued the scandal up to this hour. — Morning Chronicle. We do not know that the discussions, if discussions they can he called, which took place in the House of Commons on Monday and Tuesday, relative to Irish Corporations, afford any topic that calls for notice : but sure we are, that if any ingenious writer, imitating the example of the learned and able author of the " Curiosities of Literature," should ever take it into his head to favour the public with the " Curiosities of Politics," he will find • abundant materials for one series at least in the debate of the preceding week on the same subject. Mr. Sheil, who quite outdid Mr. ?lice's memorable assertion, that " expect" has not the same signification in Ireland that it has in Eng land, especially in reference to a bribe, took great pains to convince the House that "an alliance upon terms" is not " a compact." These are in themselves curiosities. Mr. Rice long since repudiated the word " Irishman," declaring that he, would blot out the Channel and dub himself for evermore a " West Bri tons" Mr. O'Connell, the other night, declared his intention of doing the same thing, and pervhaps Mr. Shell has fallen into the plan, though without any formal notice. Is it intended that future lexicogra phers are to take notice of West Britonism in tongue, as naturalists must in revising the classification of animals, and that when they assign to words; upon the authority of a debate in the House of Commons,. meanings that were never meant, or.no meaning at all, they will be expected to substitute for Dr. Johnson's perpetually recurring " Saxon " the indemnity of the obscurity that " West British " will convey ? Poor Trog ! How he would have enriched our phraseology with his Chimpanzee perversion of the King's En . glish, had not the cruel fates snatched him from us, and left us only Mr. Shen and Mr. Rice to labour in that vocation 1 • But no matter, the " Diversions " of " Parliament " will beat the " Diversions of Purley " yet, if the subsequent progress do anything like justice to the first promise of these two illustrious West Bri tons. Then Mr. Sheil insisted that the Irish must be, and shall be equal to the English and Scotch. Now we are very glad to hear this, which, as our American friends would say, is " important, if true." The "must " is a flight into the high ropes far above our reach. The " shall be" we desire to understand. Does Mr. Sheil mean to say that an act of Parlia ment can make the Irish equal to the English and Scotch ? If so, he is mistaken. Such a result can no more be effected by such a process than the one pound note and the shilling became equal to a gui nea, when the Parliament voted that they were so. We hope Mr. Shell uses the words in some other sense—that he looks forward to the time when the advantages of civilization shall be more generally dif fused throughout Ireland, and when the priesthood of the misguided populace shall teach them the sublime truths and the humanizing and peaceful virtues which Christianity . inculcates, instead of desecrating their altars with inflammatory political harangues, and ex citing to the deadliest hate where their duty to God they should preach charity and to their country.requires and concord. The Irish shall be equal to the English and Scotch ! Most happy should we _be to find the prediction true, and besides ranking Mr. Sheil among the modern prophets, to make a bold push with the Pope for his canonization. But we are afraid the con summation so devoutly to be wished can hardly, by possibility, happen in our time. Not to multiply from Ireland instances of horrors, at which the blood runs cold, we invite the attention of the reader to the fol lowing passage from the last Newry Telegraph that reached this country •.—" The system of setting, which we have already hinted at, we should have ob served is simply this :—A man who has a dis like to, or quarrel with, another, employs some persons from a part o f the country with the Inhabitants of which the unfortunate man to be b eaten I s unacquainted-, and whom he therefore caniiest identify. The assassins, and surely they de serve the appellation, are generally hired for a p nt of whisky each, for which reward is frequently committed one of those deeds without a name' which leave their wretched victim maimed, blind, or idiotic during life. In a case of transportation of a ruffian for a bad case of waylaying, a short time since, in Dundalk, the culprit freely admitted, in his defence, that he never saw or . . heard of the man whom he so shockingly abused until a few minutes before he was employed for the pur pose !" Now, what must be the character of the priest hood and of the peasantry in which such a - system as this obtains ? What but a reform more searching than Radical ever dreamed of, and of a very different charac ter from the spurious quackeries that at present pass under cover of that name, can eradicate this wicked ness, civilize the barbarism out of which it grows, and . place the ignorant instruments and actors in it on an equality with Scotch men and Englishmen ? Mr. Shell may take our word for it that he is much too sanguine, and howeverdisagreeable that truth maybe, it is our duty to tell it. Another curiosity will be found in the ground, the sole ground upon which the recent attempt at agita tion proceeded, and which is embodied in all the peti tions which the agitators have been able to get up re lative to Corporations in Ireland, here and in other parts of the kingdom. That ground is, " that it is an insult to Ireland to give her a Corporation Bill dif ferent to the British Corporation Bills." Well, the agitation is over, and the petitions are presented—but what sort of a Bill do the Ministers propose for Ire land ? Why, a Bill in every essential particular dif ferent and distinct from the British measures. Thus, then, the agitators have, as usual, made fools of that portion of the public who listened to them, and the Ministers have lent themselves to the deception. The Government and their supporters did before, and are now doing, precisely that which their innocent dupes out of doors have been persuaded to petition against, on the supposition that the " insult to Iteland" originated with, and was confined to, the House of Lords. - We confess we are surprised that this fraud succeeded with any portion, however small and ignorant, of the people ; because, as none can fail to knoW, at least, that in Ireland there is a Viceroy, in whom and whose Council all the Go vernment of that part of the empire centres, so none ought to have suffered themselves to be imposed upon by the assertion, that to legislate for Ireland in a man ner different to that on which legislation for England and Scotland proceeds is an " insult to Ireland." The next curiosity is the declaration made by Lord John Russell, and re-echoed. by the whole party, that the Lords' Bill is arbitrary and despotic. The fact hap pens to be, that whereas the Lords' Bill offers the local government provided by the 9th George IV. to any town in Ireland that pleases to adopt it, the Mi nisterial Bill, forces that identical government upon a certain number of towns, giving no option to them to refuse it, nor allowing other towns to accept it, if either should be so minded. We will not condescend to argue what must be palpable to every one namely, that the despotism in - this matter, if there he any, is wholly on the side of the Ministers, not on that of the Lords. It is an admirable illustration of the proverb, that " one man may steal a horse, while another will be hanged for looking into a stable." Ag,a:n, Lord John Russell insists that the Lords' Bill makes a gross violation of the rights of property —inasmuch as upon the abolition of Corporations (which is an enactment common to both Bills) the Lords arranged that the corporate. property should he vestezl in Commissioners appointed by the Crown, until the towns should have elected Commissioners of their own. This arrangement, one of a mere tem porary character, having for its sole object the safe 'eu,tody and protection of the property, until those interested in it could appoint trustees of their own s and checked and controlled as it is beyond the possibility of abuse, is called a violation of the rights of property! And by whore ? Why, by the authors of the Irish Church Bill, which contains a clause vesting the whole of the property of the parochial clergy in Crown Com missioners as each benefice becomes vacant ; hut not, as in the case of the cdrporate property, temporarily and for the benefit of the parish—no ; for " the pur poses of the Act"—that is to say, to be, with the ex ception of a miserable pittance, melted down and dis posed of as the Agitators may hereafter decree and direct. But the greatest curiosity of all is, that Lord John Russell should seriously propose a compromise with the House of Lords, and preserve a grave face in doing it. Can he suppose that the Lords haVe for gotten his conduct on the English Corporation Bill, and the answer he gave to those who reproached hire for attempting to disfranchise by that Bill the freemen whose righ:s the Reform Act reserved to them ? Lord John Russell's answer can never be forgotten. It ad mitted that the reservation of those rights was a part of the bargain with the Lords—that it was introduced to reconcile the Lords to other parts of that Act ; but that it was not intended to keep faith with their Lord ships on the subject I Talk of Punic faith !—we will back the modern Whigs against all the tricksters of antiquity and of their own times put together.— Tinier. It affords us no small' 'gratification to find that the Prisoners' Counsel-Bill is to be disinterred from the oblivion winch the enemies of equal justsice had pre pared for it, and that Lord Lyndhurst has under taken to introduce it to the House of Lords for the second reading this day. We are well aware of the attempts which were made last session to " cushion" this Bill in the House; where Lord Lyndhurst is so distinguished a leader, and which attempts were then but too successful. It is equally true and lamentable that Lord Brougham struck the blow which had nearly proved fatal to a measure, without the adoption of which the life of the poor man can never have the same protection that is thrown round the property of the rich. It is the more melancholy to think of this conduct on the part of Lord Brougham, when it is re-- collected that one of the ablest ertieles that ever appear ed in support of the principle of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill was published in the Edinburgh Review, about nine years ago, from the pen of Mr. Henry Brougham, who, only in last Session, endeavoured to strangle in embryo the Bill for carrying the principle which he had so ably advocated into effect ! If Lord Lyndhurst should carry the Bill, how great will be his triumph, as a reformer of the law., over his professedly more liberal political rival ? We are sorry to find that there are some Barristers who regard this question as one of pounds, shillings, and pence. They who would place sordid pelf in the scales of justice against the life of man, may be very ingenious reasoners, but their logic savours 'of that intense and gross selfishness which proves to their own satisfaction that injustice,: with a large amount of fees, is better than less profitable jus tice. So undoubtedly it is for the Barristers, but not for the public ; but we have pleasure in being able to state that, though there are some members of the Bar who loudly complain of the time which trials of pri soners for felony would occupy, if the Bill were passed, and who prefer, because of its greater gains, rapid injustice to slow justice ; yet it is by no means the prevailing sentiment at the Bar, where there are still many advocates who would rather see ten prisoners well and deliberately tried, than a score murdered from precipitancy. It is impossible that equal justice can be afforded to a prisoner unless he is allowed to make his full defence, by Counsel, in answer to the full accusation made by the Counsel for the prosecu tor. As to time, a great deal is now consumed in irregular cross-examination, which would be saved if the Prisoners' Counsel Bill became a law. But the real question is not one of convenience or inconve nience, but of justice or injustice ; and prisoners charged with felony cannot have justice, unless allowed to make their full defence by Counsel.—Morning Herald. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine any ade 'quate apology for the conduct of the present Ministers of the Crown in all that relates to the Church of England. Our readers are aware that several sees are now vacant, and have been so for a considerable beriod. From the delay i n a pp o i nt i ng Bi s h ops to t h ese ereaved dioceses, great inconvenience and much posi tive injury must necessarily have arisen. Some of the most solemn and important ordinances and rites of the Church of England are suspended, or, if adminis tered at all, administered by some stranger, who has no permanent or intimate connection with the i e esc eccle siastical district in which . they a re requ i re d, an d w h o is therefore of necessi ty less co gnizant of the condition t lesso t p a i acquainted o conscious l functions o of the responsibility of that -department of the iCpselsrrut profoundlyar i e n h w i t h its peculiar wants , , hic a i l l id a less aßs ~,h op regularly and canonically ap pointed would naturally become. The affairs spiritual and temporal of the vacant dioces are liable, in the absence of that s uperintendence and controul which the constitution of the Church has required and pro vided to fall into confusion. Ordinations, charges, THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1836. and confirmations are totally neglected, or dele gated to a stranger, while at the same time the temporalities of the diocese are endangered in the hands of persons who have no paramount interest in pro tecting them from assault or dilapidation. What is the motive which induces the present Administration to keep these dioceses vacant ? Are they anxious to shoNV to the world that they hold the episcopal office to be superfluous ? Is it their purpose to furnish the Humes and Roebucks of the House of Commons a new economical argument for the extinction of the episcopal order ? r ls the episcopal interregnum of which they are the authors one of the results of their alliance with Mr. O'Connell, and intended to show that in the Protestant Church Bishops are •needless incumbrances ? Or is this protracted dislocation of the proper Members of the Upper House of Parlia ment meant to convey a lesson to the country in favour of a more comprehensive and permanent reform of that branch of the Legislature ? By whichever of these motives Ministers may have been impelled to try the present experiment it is quite certain that the experi ment has failed. However surprising it may appear to the Ministers of the Crown, the fact, we believe, really is, that the dioceses left without Bishops feel the want of them, and that, if the sees are left much longer va cant, remonstrances will reach 'Whitehall of such a nature as cannot be conveniently or safely disregarded. It may appear, at first sight, that the neglect of Ministers to fill the vacancies on the Episc o pal Bench as fast as they occur is a proof of a di in terested indifference on their part to patron a ge. The proof, however, will scarcely stand the test o f a very rigorous examination. The Whig Ministers en danger the safety and undermine the character of the Church by omitting to exercise the desirable pa tronage of nominating Bishops. But, in the mean while, they grasp a patronage not properly theirs, a patronage far more valuable than that of the Bishoprics, which they seem to surrender, in the benefices in the gift of every vacant see, which during the vacancy fall into their hands. This, it will at once be seen, is neficial and convenient to the Administration in every way. The value of what they get is much greater than the value of what they lose. They have few men belonging to them whose elevation to the epis copal rank would be tolerated by the friends of the Church, who may not yet be prudently defied. They have many men who may be introduced into rectories and, vicarages without attracting much notice. • The Church patronage most available for their purposes is that which may be distributed in the dark. So far as patronage is concerned, nothing, we believe, would suit the present Ministers so well as that all the Bishoprics of England and Wales were vacant. The above considerations are sufficiently trite and ob vious. Ministers have not overlooked—have not been permitted to overlook—them. Hence the ne cessity of some apology for their conduct. And what is that apology ? They say that they cannot appoint Bishops until Parliament has determined the future amount of their incomes, these being - now problematical in consequence of the meditated re forms of the Church. They go further. They allege, we believe, that the clergymen, whom they might se lect for the vacant biLhopi.ics could not accept the ap poilitraiuts subject to the condition of abiding by the. future regulations to be adopted by Parliament with respect to income, for that acquiescence in such a con dition Would be simoniseal on the part of the newlv appointed prelates. We are seriously told that this is the Ministerial apology for, leaving the dioceses of EiQand without bishops. The apology seems to us to be more revolting and more vicious than the act for which it is tendered as an excuse. It is an apology far too durahle to be good for anything. If it is available to day, when three or four bishoprics are vacant, it will be equally available this time te:i years, when, upon the present system, and accord ing to the ordinary course of nature, much mare than half .of the sees of England and Wales would have become vacant. Admit the validity of this apo logy, and Ministers have nothing to do but to keep up the question of Church reform, without deciding it, fur a certain period, and ail the bishoprics of England will have accumulated in their hands, and all the Church patronage of England will lay at their absolute disposal. Is this a power which any constitutional Administration would desire to • usurp ? Is it a power whiCh the friends of the Church or the Constitution of England can per mit any Ministess to exercise ? But, apart from the above general reasoning, which, however, is conclusive, do not Ministers know, must they not of necessity know, from transactions in which they have borne a part, that their apology is worthleSs ? Did not the present Bishop of Derry enter into the possession of that diocese on the express understanding that he was to submit to any future diminution of income which Parliament in its wisdom might think proper to enact ? Was not the appointment of Dr. Ponsonby made a matter of boast by the Whigs on the express ground of this understanding ? Was not the world sickened, on the occasion of this appointment, by the self-glori fication of the Whigs on the score of their prudence, forethought, 'moderation, economical abhorrence of large revenues—especially ecclesiastical revenues ? And now, merely because the Whigs find it convenient to hold several Bishoprics in their own hands, are we to be told that Dr. Ponsonby is a simoniacal Bishop, and that Earl Grey, and a greater still than Earl Grey, became in his case the abettors and promoters of si mony ?—Morning Post. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven 0' clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, HO USE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Mr. O'CONNELL brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Dublin and Drogheda Railway. METROPOLITAN SUgPENSION . BRIDGE. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the Vauxhall Bridge Company against the Metropolitan Suspension Bridge, which stood for Report to-day. The petition prayed that the Bill might be either re-committed, or re ferred to the Standing Order Committee, on the ground that great irregularities had been committed. MANCHESTER AND CHESTER RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. WILBRAHAM the Manchester and Cheshire Railway Bill was read a second time and passed. they were not the men whom he would have selected for such a Board. In place of being men of science and ma- 4 riners, they were Edinburgh lawyers, and the sheriffs of some of the maritime counties. It was a question of life or death, and therefore he hoped that Hon. Members would pay some little attention to it. Applications had been made from the year 1820 to the present time, and what was the answer ? Why, that the measure, was totally unnecessary, because the island had the protection of a roadstead. The engineer stated it was a dry harbour ; now in a correspondence that took place in 1827, it was stated that" according to the report of the Commissioners, this was not'a place where it was necessary that a Light-house should be established, as there was no water there. Now he held in his hand two affidavits of pilots, who stated, that during the last month they had sounded this road stead, and had found 18 feet of water at the lowest ebb of the tide. He was determined to do what was necessary, in order that justice should be done to his constituents. The SPEAKER called the Right Hon. Gentleman to order. If the Right Hon. Gentleman wished to enter upon a debate, he should make a motion upon the subject. He should move that the petition be printed, and then make it the subject of a motion. The Right Hon. Gentleman might then move for leave to bring in a Bill. Mr. C. FERGUSSON thought it, was useless to attempt it. He thought that the forms of the House had been changed since he came to that House. Hon. Members used to have an opportunity of statiugthe case of the petitioners. He thought he had a right to state the case of the petitioners, but he had no right to have a debate upon it—that he admitted. —(Loud laughter.) He had a right to make a statement, provided he did not travel out of the petition.—(Cries of " Oh.") He would give 'notice, that on Thursday next, he would move for certain papers connected with the Board of Commissioners. Mr. HUME hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fergusson), considering that the session was draw ing to a close, would fix some day, as it was of the utmost importance that the subject should be taken into considera tion in all its bearings. Mr. GILLON thought a little explanation might be permitted on petitions of great importance—otherwise they were presented by a Member, shoved into,a\ bag, and never more heard of. ISLINGTON MARKET BILL. Mr. RICKFORD presented a petition from Stoney Stratford in the county of Buckingham, against the Isling ton Cattle Market Amendment Bill. The petitioners stated the real object of the Bill was to abolish the Smith field Market. SUIR NAVIGATION. On the motion of Mr. V. STUART the Suir Naviga tion Navigation Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. FITZSIMON presented two petitions from the parish of St. Peter and St. Mary, Rathmines, praying the House to reject the Corporation Bill, as amended by the Lords, and for the total abolition of tithes. Sir R. BATESON presented a petition from 350 in habitants of Coleraine - in favour of the Municipal Bill, as amended by the Lords. The petition was not one of those covered with marks and tokens, and all over blots, with which the House had lately been inundated:; but came from the respectable inhabitants of the town.—(A laugh.) LIGHT-HOUSES. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON presented two peti tions from the Stevvartry of Kirkudbright, which not merely affected the interests of the county which he had the honour to represent, but also the adjoining ones, in cluding Lancashire and Cumberland, two Hon. Members for which places he iaw in their seats, and he had no doubt they had come down for the purpose of supporting the prayer of these petitions. The petitioners complained that the navigation of the Mull o f Gallow ay was of a most perilous nature, and not a sing l e Li g ht house was erec ted on that part of the co ast. It had been for twenty-five or thirty years the object of the p e ti t i oners to have a Light-house established on the Island of Little Ross, but without effect. Hitherto the Commissioners had resisted these applications upon the ground that it was im possible to sustain them. There was a Light upon the gull of Galloway, but it was a well known fact that there was a head-land intervened which shut it out. In the course of last year four shipwrecks had occurred, the crews of two of the vessels being lost—all of them might have es caped had there been a Lighthouse on this coast. In the last 80 years there had been no less than 66 shipwrecks, and he had it from good authority that the great2r part of them might have been' saved if a Lighthouse bad beea erected, which would not cost more than 1,4001.—a sum less in amount than the value of any single cargo which had been lost. He did not mean to decry the Commissioners, but BENEFIT SOCIETY. Mr. T. ATTWOOD presented a petition from a Benefit Society in Southampton, praying that they might be allowed to do what they liked with their own—(Laughter, and " Hear, hear") —in the management of their funds. FACTORIES. Mr. T. ATTWOOD also presented numerous peti tions from factory labourers in favour of the Ten Hours Bill. Mr. GOULBOURN presented petitions to the same effect. MORAY ESTATE BILL. This Bill was read a third time, and passed. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the County of Surrey, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death, except in cases of murder ; also a petition praying for the abolition of -Church rates. AN HON. MEMBER (for Sudbury) presented a petition from Sudbury, on the same subject. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT. _ _ Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition complaining of the operation of the Poor-Law Amendment Act. The Hon. Membcr thought that Guardians should be empow ered to grant temporary relief to labourers out of employ ment. Many of them were obliged to sell their furniture in order to support their families during periods when they were nut of employment, and they were in consequence re duced to the condition of paupers. Mr. KEMP presented a petition on the same subject. EDINBURGH ANNUITY TAX. The ATTORNEY-GENERA 14 presented a petition from Edinburgh, against the Edinburgh annuity tax. Mr. R. D. BROWNE presented petitions from Kil more, County of Mayo, praying for the total abolition of tithe, and one from Newport Pratt, praying for a provision for the poor. The petition stated that 35' persons had died in 1831 of starvation, and that the Marquis of Sligo and Sir R. O'Donell, who received 3,7001. out of the parish, had not contributed one farthing to the relief of the poor. Sir C. KNIGHTLEY presented two petitions, the subject of which did not reach us, STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the present would be a fitting opportunity, as the Hon. Barone who had just presented the petition had a notice pending upon a motion of his (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer's), to state that he proposed on Monday night to go into the question of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers, when, according to the arrangement that had been made, the Hon. Member might propose his proposition as an amendment. Mr. R. SMITH presented a petition from Wycombe, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition for the re gulation of the duties on spirit licenses ; and one from an individual in the Preventive Service, complaining of an un fair distribution of prize-money arising from the seizure of a vessel. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt it his duty to say a few words upon the last petition presented by the lion. Member. It was from a gentlemen lately in the Preventive Service. The occurrence took place in the year 1822, and had been before successive Boards of Treasury, and it had been decided against the petitioner before he (Mr. S. Rice) came into office. It was due, how ever, to his predecessors to say, that he had been solicited to take the case into his tonsideration ; he had done so, and he found that it involved two particulars of complaint —the first was a complaint against his professional capacity, and the other complaining of the value of the cargo. After full consideration had been given to the subject, the Government had felt themselves compelled to negative the request—(Hear, hear).- but Lord Spencer agreed that a reference should be made to the gallant Admiral the Member for Devonport, the result of which was to acquit him of any want of spirit. It was never expected by the Government that the Gallant Admiral would decide the question of law. Upon applying to this individual to know why he had not applied earlier for the reward, he stated to him (Mr. S. Rice), and he had a letter from him to that effect, that he had been induced to forgo his claim to the reward, because two of his opponents were of such different characters, and he could not claim his reward without including them. If the Gentleman who had presented tie petition would take the trouble to read all the documents on the subject, he was sure he would see there was no foundation for the allegations of the pe titioner. Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had read the whole of the documents, and was of the same opinion as the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Other people had captured the vessel, and in consequence the petitioner had not claimed the reward. Years had passed since then, and he now came forward to claim it. The pe tition was then ordered to lie on the table. REVENUE LAWS. Mr. BIS H presented a petition from Leominster against the power of distraining for King's taxes. One of the peti tioners had been sued and committed to gaol. The petition stated that manslaughter was visited in a much less severe manner than offences against the Revenue laws. IRISH CORPORATION BILL. Mr. CHAL NIERS presented a petition from Montrose, praying the House not to agree to the Lords' amendments on the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. Lord STANLEY presented a petition against certain clauses of the same Bill. Some other petitions were presented, but from the ex tremely low tone of voice in which the Hon. Members spoke, it was impossible to hear what the objects of the pe titions were, or where they came from. SINGING IN THE STREETS. Mr. FOX MAULE gave some notice in reference to the Turnpike Trusts Consolidation Bill, the nature of which we could not learn. The Hon. Member took that opportunity of answering a question put to him a day or two before by the Hon. Member for Surrey, respecting two persons who had been committed to prison by the magis trates of Hatton-garden for singing in the streets. He had made enquiry into the matter, and he found that the charge - upon which they had been taken into custody was for creating an obstruction in the streets, and that they had been only in confinement for an hour instead of seven days, as the Hon. Member had been informed. Major BEAUCLERK expressed his satisfaction at the explanation of the Hon. Gentleman. ALIEN ACT. Dr. BOWRING understood that vexatious proceed ings were instituted under this Act, and he begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman whether he was aware of the circum stance ? Mr. FOX MAULE replied in the negative. OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE STREETS. Colonel SIBTHORP called the attention of the Hon. Gentleman to the obstruction of carriages and other vehicles in the streets, by which serious accidents were frequently occasioned. He trusted that some regulations might be adopted on the subject. TRINITY HOUSE, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL. Mr. HUTT trusted the House would allow him to in troduce the Bill for which he had given notice upon the subject of the Trinity House of Kingston-upon-Hull, and the discussion mifflit be taken upon it at a future stage. Mr. ROBINSON objected to the introduction of the measure, as it took him completely by surprise. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped no difficulties would be thrown in the way of the business of the evening by opposing the motion. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon. Member for Finsbury had a motion upon the subject of the Septennial Act, which was likely to excite a prolonged debate. Mr. WAKLEY would withdraw the question for the present, as he conceived it inexpedient to bring it for ward now. Independently of that, he was aware there was a general anxiety to have the Registration of Voters' Bill passed, and he should throw no obstacle in the way.— ( Hear.) IMPROVEMENT OF THE METROPOLIS. Mr. Alderman WOOD did not anticipate any opposi tion to the motion which he was about to bring forward. It was to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the most effectual ptan for raising money to carry into effect the necessary improvements required in the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of South wark, and the counties of Middlesex and Surry, and for the purchase of the interest of the proprietors of Waterloo and Southwark-bridges, in order that they might be thrown open free of toll. He had been considered extravagant in the improvements he had projected in the City, but the new street which had been opened from London Bridge, and the new street at the Post Office, and various other improvements had been carried into effect in a satisfactory manner, and had, he trusted, satisfied those gentlemen that his projects were not so extravagant.—(Hear, hear.) He had attempted to carry the wide street from Waterloo bridge to the North-road, but he did not meet with that support in the Committee which he expected ; the conse quence was that he failed, and the wide street was carried only up to Bow-street, at an expense of 10,000/., while he proposed to have carried it all the way to the North-road for 100,000/. He proposed to get a fund for carrying his project into effect by a tax of sixpence per ton upon all coals imported into London, which would give an annual sum of 51,000/. He calculated that the poor man would thereby pay about , Is. a year for the privilege of passing free over the whole of the bridges. He did not mean that the funds should be as heretofore, under the control of the City, but that Commissioners should be appointed, consisting of Members of Parliamer.t, of the Corporation, and of magistrates, who would give their services gratuitously. The Hon. Member then proceeded to state his proposed plan, and concluded by moving that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider and carry into effect the necessary improvements in the City of London and West minster, and the Borough of Southwark ; and also the means of raising the money for that purpose. Mr. HUME, in supporting the motion of the Worthy Alderman, hoped it would be understood that he was not sanctioninn , raising money upon tolls. Ns one more than himself thought it necessary that improvements should take place in the City of London ; and he hoped that the plan suggested by the City of London would be carried into effect. He was anxious to give them an opportunity of submitting that plan to the House, and therefore it was that he voted for the motion of the Hon. Alderman. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should object if the 'public purse was to be called upon. -- LONDON, BIRMINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND THAMES JUNCTION RAILWAY. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the third reading of this Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON rose to move the in sertion of a clause which he had given notice on a former occasion. Parliament should have time to consider these measures, and to make regulations in order to render them efficient to the public, and to prevent their becoming mo nopolies to the great injury of private property and the rain of individuals living under the protection of the Government. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE objected to the clause, not only with respect to the particular Bill be fore the House, but as . to other Bills. His first ?bjec tion to it was, that he thought it was manifestly unjust, it ought not to be made retrospective as to to those i Bills in Parliament, and it would be inconvenient to bin( Parliament to an advance in legislation. If this clause were adopted, railroads would be put a stop to altogether. There was a great mass of capital in the country which must be employed, and if it was not employed here it would be abroad. Their Lordships, should be cautious before they offered any discouragement to speculative industry.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be very unfair to those parties who had entered into contracts, and incurred very ' ()Teat expense, to impose upon them a condi tion which they were not aware of, before they had in curred so many heavy obligations. For these reasons, he objected to the clause. Lord MANSFIELD did not altogether approve of this clause. The interest the public had in these railways had not yet been brought before the House. The parties petitioned for Parliamentary protection, and a monopoly en the grounds of its being a benefit to the public. He was afraid many of these projected railways would never be com pleted, which would be a great detriment to the public, and the proprietors of land generally. It was, there fore, necessary that some security should be given to the public, that the lines would not only be completed, but would be maintained, at whatever loss that might be to the shareholders. That could only be carried into effect by making the shareholders liable to a sum larger than their subscriptions. Lord HATHERTON submitted that the House could not with justice now insert such a clause in the Bills now on the table. The measure ought to be mo‘ed in the shape of a standing order, saying that no Bill should be read a third time without such a clause. That would afford the parties notice of the obligations they were to come under. There was no precedent, either in that or in the other House, for such a step being taken, at such a time.—(Hear, hear.) The usual course was, to give notice of an alteration of the Standing Orders at,the end of a. Session, by which parties were made aware of what alterations were to take place. He could not agree with the statements that had been made respecting railways, he could not think that rail ways would ever become monopolies ; he could see no difference between them and canals. About seventy or eighty years ago, when canals were first formed , they were denounced in loud terms as monopolies, but ex perience had proved that they were utterly unfounded. He remembered the Grand Junction Canal being declared monopoly ; its fifty pound shares were then selling at 600/. There was no doubt whatever that the profits were good, but the fact was, that subsequently to the war, —capital being then in great abundance—a new can° were cut, and then a railroad established, so that there were three lines and no monopoly. In 20 years there would b 3 as little signs of monopoly in railroads. In 1825, when the Liverpool Bill was under consideration of the House ; he emembered that Mr. Huskisson thought it expedient either to limit the term of the duration of the Bill or to:re strict the dividends.(Hear, hear, hear.) He had g reat objection to the first course, and took the latter, well knowing that it could never be carried into effect, but by that means he conciliated the opposition, and got the Bill. He suggested that it would bs better to postpone the bills for another year rather than introduce such a clause as that proposed by the Noble Duke. If such a clause was introduced it would lose to the country many of the a ivsntages which wonld be derived to the public from future improvements, and the lowering of tolls, and particularly after the parties had expended 20 or 30,000/. in carrying a Bill through its various stages, on the faith that their rights would be protected. On these grounds he thought such a clause would be most injudicious. The Earl of WICKLOW also objected to the clause. It was a breoch of faith to the subscribers of those railways who had paid their money upon the faith of existing laws. At all events the clause should not have a r etrospective effect. The Duke of WELLINGTON defended the clause. The Noble Lord opposite (Hatherton) had suggested the postponement of these Bills fora year, until the consideration of their Lordships had been applied to them ; that was the very object of his (the Duke of Wellington's) proposition. He did not wish thot any obstacle should be thrown in their way, but he was anxious that the interests of the public should be protected. (LEFT SPEAKING.) Yesterday the Recorder made his Report to his Majesty of the prisoners under sentence of death in Neweter who were convicted at the last session of the Central Crinunt Court, viz., David M a rtin, 20 ; A aron M oses , 19 ; Jose_P.° Aaron, 19; Solomon Hyams, 19 ; Th omas F r y, 20 ; Denim' Reardon, 18 ; and Benjamin Castles, 19, for burglary. Thos. Ray, 22 ; and Thomas Wade, 26, for robbery. To all 4 whom his Majesty has been graciously pl ease d to extend bo royal mercy. A man, named Mourne, suddenly expired on Wed' nesday, while in the act of eating his dinner, at Jersey. (ADVERTISEMENT.) POWERFUL MUSICAL BOXES, in vitl oLl cases, 12 inches long, by 5 inches wide, each playing Four Air s, . with the music finished in a very superior man ne r, are offered 1 9 Five Guineas each. Also a few of the same description, with Ss% Airs, price Seven Guineas each, at T. Cox SAvoitv's, Working Silversmith, Goldsmith, and Watchmaker, 47, Cornhill, London- N. B. The small musical boxes, 3 inches long, con tinue sell in g in tin cases, price 19s. each, or in composition shell eases, at Os' each. BIRTHS. On the 31st ult., at Clifton, near Bristol, the lady of Colonel 1r- Whish, of a daughter. On the 10th inst., at Bishopfield, Nottinghamshire, the la d e °f F. Fearnley, Esq., of a son. - On the 11th inst., at Southgate, Mrs. Frederick Beds" a son. eat, On the 11th inst., th e w if e o f W . Rid ge, E sq. , o f Duke -sh eet, Westminster, of a son. On the II th inst., the lady of the Rev. C. Lane, of Kenning t4/1 ' of a son. f tb e On the 27th ult, at N ew - s t ree t , D orset-square, t h e lady o Rev. Dr. Brown, of a son. On the 17th inst., Mrs. E. H. Gough, of Hackney-road' °f daughter. On the 13th inst., Mrs. W. S. Fry, of a son. goat On the 11th inst., at Wool w i c h, the lady of Captain Alder R.E., of a daughter. al hi gh At Ramsgate, the lady of C a pt a i n J ames C am pbell, Roy Fusileers, of a daughter. I. On the 14th inst., at St. M PanARRED cras, by the Rev. Alfred Williaols, M.A., Joseph Bonsor, Esq., of Polesden, Surrey, to Eli za Donne' youngest daughter of Major Alexander Orme, of Fitzroy-squa re : e On the 9th inst., at the British Ambassador's, Brussels, Ge..,t. B. Robinson, Esq., to Jane Campbell, youngest daughter of " Hamilton, Esq., of Antwerp. On the 9th inst., at Aberdeen, John Richardson Forsyth, Etho of Kingston, Upper Canada, to Catharine, third daughter of late D. Forsyth, Esq., formerly of St. Petersburgh. f tye On the 9th inst., at Barnes, Thomas Bernard, eldest son ° „ ej t late G. Cooke, Esq., of Barnes-terrace, to Elizabeth, 0u2,,41, daughter of the late Rev. T. Etherington, A.M., o f Stbc ll .7 L ( ; rc i Surrey, and niece of the late Right Rev. Dr. Van. Mildert , Bishop of Durham. On the Bth inst., at Ruanlanihorn, in the county - of Cor n to the Rev. Robert Morris, of Great Russell-street., bloomsborY' of " Harriett, eldest daughter of the Rev. Richard Budd, Rector Ruanlanihorn. On the 11th inst., Edward DR/aEph * Charles Sheldon, Esq., l‘ f * P. for South Warw aged 55. On the 13th inst. ickshi , in re, Manchester-square, Ann, the wife Of H. Pope, Esq. ci On the 13th inst., Sarah, relict of the late W. Lucas, Esq" Stroud-green, Hornsey. s on the On the 11th inst., at Hastings , a ged 16, Wal t e r, youngest ~,. the late G. George Winn , Es q ., M.P., of Warle y Lodges In county of Essex. On the 12th inst., at Bushey-grove, David Haliburtron , aged 86. On the 11th inst. , at Mar g ate, a g ed 67, William Ge(Jrge Walt"' Esq., late o ferondsey. On the 12th in m st., in Euston-square, Jane, the wife of f• C ' White, Esq. On the 11th inst., at Southampton, aged 64, S. D.. Liptrapp late of Gestingthore, Essex. On the 10th ins p t. , at Dalston, aged 93, Sarah, relict of Thavol a Goff, of Rosamond- row lizabeth, wife , Clerkenwell. On the 13th inst., E of Mr. W. Edwa rds, 12, Ale Maria-lane. On the 10th inst., Sarah, elder daughter of Mr. P. Ganger , °f Harley-place, Bow. On the 7th inst., aged 7 9 , Elizabeth, wife of Mr. It. Speer, of King-street, Hammersmith - t . On the 10th inst., at S. Leonard's, Sussex, Sc n allis third son of Evelyn John Shirley, Esq., of Eatinflton-park, War wickshire. On the 7th inst., at Forest-gate , West Ham, Mr_ Wm. Hange er, aged 72. On the sth inst., in Hertford - stree t, May-fair, General William Scott. On the sth inst., aged 80, M r. Andrew Collyer, s en., of Farn ham, Surrey. On the sth inst., Sophia Ranken, infant (lau g hter of John :Nil, Esq., Sydenham Common. est dahter of. oxat, Esq. •to On the 4th inst., at Philly -brook, Layton, ag eld ed 5, .Julia An a.ette, On the 2d inst., in D Pembrok e -squAre, Kensington, Clans P lwr William Fisher, Esq., aged 73. On the 7th inst., in Nightingale-2ane, Clapham-covatnon, Anna' wife of R. Stewart , Esq —got London : ninted awl Published by MURDO YotrNG, or 112, Strand, at The San Office,Strand n the &null of Middlesex. Mr. Alderman WOOD said he did not wish to do so. Sir R. PEEL hoped that in any improvements that might be suggested, sonic little foresight would be shown before thy were carried into effect.—(Hear, hear.) Supposing it to be manifest that great improvements would be made, he hoped that Government would not put a veto upon it—or upon the advance of public money. He would not say that the public should sustain any loss, or that the metropolis had any claim upon the public money more than other parts of the Empire. But it was possible that when great improvements might be made by the Govern ment advancing money, which could not be made by any other means, and when the public could sustain no loss, as in the transfer of Exchequer Bills. In that case he thought they might apply the public money upon perfect security. Whether a Committee was the best mode of making the inquiry, he was not prepared to say. He thought that a Board of Commissioners would be better adapted to the purpose.. _ . The motion was then put and carried. LOTTERIES. Mr. O'CONNELL would move as an amendment, by way of an instruction to the Select Committee, that an in quiry be instituted into the state of the law relative to lotteries, and whether any, and what alteration, was deemed necessary.—( Hear, hear.) Every Hon. Member of the House must be aware that notwithstanding the law restrained lotteries, they were carried on openly—they were advertised in the newspapers. Foreign lotteries were daily advertised, and tickets disposed of. Now, although the sale of tickets was prohibited, persons were not prohi bited from purehasing them, and by means of agents here money to the amount of between 100,0001. and 200,0001. was annually exported from this country.—(Hear.) Now, if there was an inherent immorality in these lotteries, the House ought not to countenance it, but when they saw what was going on—when they say 10, 20, 30, aye and 40 gaming houses open every night totally unrestrained, he thought that the subject required investigation.—(Hear, hear.) They ought to enquire whether foreign lotteries should be suppressed or not, as his motion went that length, or whether they should allow the establishment of home lotteries. Mr. HUME submitted that this was a proper subject for a separate Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Here was no connexion between the objects of the two motions, and he thought that a different class of individuals ought to be put upon the two Committees. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHERUER was very glad that the subject had been noticed. His attention had been already called to the subject, and he had a Bill in preparation'which he hoped was calculated to meet some portion of the evils that were complained of. • He would introduce his Bill in the course of a few weeks, and the House might then decide on it. On the contrary, he should support the reference of the Bill to a Select Com mittee. Mr. O'CON NELL expressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman. SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. Mr. CHARLES LUSHINGTON had given notice of his intention to present the petition from this body this evening. As, however, it appeared to be the wish of the House that other business should be proceeded with, be would postpone it for the present. ROMAN CATHOLIC ENDOWED COLLEGES. Mr. TREVOR postponed his motion on this subject till Thursday week. PRIVATE COMMITTEES. Mr. WASON begged to ask the Noble Lord (J. Rus sell) whether it was his intention to bring in any measure to prevent the rights of individuals from being voted away by Committees on private bills without hearing the evidence. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied in the negative. Mr. WASON then gave notiee, that on Thursday next, he would bring forward a substantial motion on the subject. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS' BILL. The House resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill—Mr. BERNAL in the Chair. On Clause 2 being put, Sir J. GRAHAM made some objection to the clause, but the precise nature of the objection did not reach us. Mr. WARBURTON defended the clause. Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the clause. Sir R. PEEL thought if the election was to take place upon a given day, then that old system should prevail ; if afterwards, then that the new one should come into ope ration. Mr. WAKLEY moved that his Majesty's name should be substituted for those of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. (LEFT SITTING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The House was occupied from 3 till 5 o'clock in hear ing evidence upon the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill. IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. Lord GREY presented a petition from Newcasstle, agreed to at a public meeting, signed by the Mayor in favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill as passed .by the Commons, and praying their Lordships to re-con sider their amendment to that Bill. CHURCH-RATES. Lord DACRE presented a petition from some place in Essex against Church-rates. LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. The MarquisofLOODONDERR YP;Setitedtl;ee petitions from merchants and traders in favour of the Lon don Grand Junction Railway. The Duke of RICHMOND would take that oppor tunity of calling the attention of the House, more particu larly the attention of his Noble Friend who was the chairman of the Committee, to the Bill that stood for a third reading that evening. His object was this ;it was well known there were employed upon many railroads, passing through local districts, locomotive engines. He was anxious their Lord ships should be assured there was no danger in those en gines passing through crowded towns. One engineer before the Comittee stated there would be no danger if five wire screens were placed over the engitie ; and another engineer had stated he thought there would be no danger ; but he considered the House ought to have_ the best evi dence, by which they would be assured that there really would he no danger. He thought the hest way would be to postpone the third reading, in order that a Select Com mittee might be appointed, before which more accurate in formation might be obtained. Lord KENYON said that if their Lordships thought sufficient information had not, been obtained, he should not resist further inquiry or investigation to remove any alarm that might exist of this n ature, pointed out by the Noble Duke. The Duke of RICHMOND thought there ought to be a more extended enquiry ; and gave notice that he should before the rising of the House move for a Select Committee. 1 ',~